alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

213) IV-C-180 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:02 AM Sheet 213 of 232 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1991 

Mr. Francis M. Trombetta 

Midway Oil Corporation 

P.O. Box 8 

217 N. Main Street 

Rutland, VT 05701 

Dear Mr. Trombetta: 

, i; .f. 1 } t < \V\ 

DF.C 1 A w 

;.;.:^ .j 

This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1991 to 

EPA regarding regulations for onboard refueling vapor recovery 

systems. We appreciate your interest in this rulemaking. 

EPA is proceeding with the rulemaking process for onboard 

controls as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

As part of this process, Congress directed the EPA to consult 

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard 

system safety. This consultation is well underway. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is 

part of the DOT, released a study of onboard system safety in 

July 1991. We are reviewing this study and have placed a copy 

in the public docket for this rulemaking. We also held a public 

hearing on September 26th and 27th in order to solicit comments 

on this issue. Written comments were accepted through October 

27th. We are in the process of making the final determination 

on how to proceed with the rule based on DOT'S conclusions 

regarding safety risks of onboard systems and on the record 

developed during the comment period. 

Thank you again for your letter. It will be included in 

the public docket. Please feel free to contact me if you 

require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours,, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RlCHAnOO. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

SYMBOL i 

SURNAME^ 

DATE 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11 

SDSB:Barba:Connell:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X515:11/04/91:ID#9974W 

Last Reviewed Charles Gray:ll/06/91:Control No. AX-91-3829 

Reviewed byDZinger:BJR:X7647:AR-455:ll/06/91:Wang No. 2609T 

CONCURRENCES 

• )••«•*••••••«**••• •••»••»*••••*•*•»• • •••*•••••.•»*••* • 

EPA Form 1320-1A (1/90) Printed on Rtcycied Paper 

OFFICIAL FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 , as adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of Hancock Park Corporate Income, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jeffrey A. Cerny, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 /s/ Jeffrey A. CernyName:Jeffrey A. CernyDate:March 25, 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1996

JANETH MARIBEL HERNANDEZ-ZALDIVAR; D.I.L.H.; J.A.O.H.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 7, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hale W. Hawbecker, LAW OFFICE OF HALE HAWBECKER, Woodbridge, Virginia, 

for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. George, 

Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Janeth Maribel Hernandez-Zaldivar and her minor children, all natives and citizens

of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 

dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying HernandezZaldivar’s application for asylum. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and deny 

in part the petition for review.

First, while Hernandez-Zaldivar faults the IJ for not considering certain evidence 

submitted in support of her asylum application, she failed to present this argument to the 

Board. As a result, this claim is unexhausted, so we dismiss this part of the petition for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Cabrera v. Barr, 930 F.3d 627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[A]rguments 

that a petitioner did not raise in the [Board] proceedings have not been exhausted and th[is]

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

Regarding Hernandez-Zaldivar’s other arguments, we have thoroughly reviewed 

the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence 

supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the remainder of Hernandez-Zaldivar’s petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. In re Hernandez-Zaldivar (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2020). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
Exhibit (31)-1**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Phillip D. Wright, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transcontinental Gas Pipe LineCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 5, 2006     By: /s/ Phillip D. Wright     Phillip D. Wright    Senior Vice President    (Principal Executive Officer)
August 2, 1940

No. 44183.

Suit *4260.*

#### *United States*v. *Mexican Products Co.*

Reap. Dec. 4549 reversed. C. A. D. 129.
**Commodity 2006 Pounds**  **Ap plied**  **2007 Pounds**

**Ap plied**  **2008 Pounds**

**Ap plied**  COTTON, GENERAL 4590.98 3399.08 1844.00 Grand Total 4590.98 3399.08 1844.00



### Pyrithiobac (078905) **Cal. DPR Usage Data**
Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) was used to produce the following table outlining the pounds of Limonene used in California over the three most recent years available (2005 - 2008).

Date Prepared: December 28, 2010 Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm Empty cells indicate no available usage.
# C_2008134EN.01004101.xml

| 31.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/41

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5173 — STM/NXP/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 134/12)

| 1. | On 23 May 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings STMicroelectronics NV (‘STM’, The Netherlands) and NXP BV (‘NXP’, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 May 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings STMicroelectronics NV (‘STM’, The Netherlands) and NXP BV (‘NXP’, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for STM: semiconductor products, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for STM: semiconductor products,

| — | for NXP: semiconductor products, |
| --- | --- |

—

for NXP: semiconductor products,

| — | for the Joint Venture: semiconductor products for mobile telecommunications. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the Joint Venture: semiconductor products for mobile telecommunications.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5173 — STM/NXP/JV to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5173 — STM/NXP/JV to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Transportation GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, DC 20590

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

49 CFR §§37.42(a); 37.3 DECEMBER 14, 2011

QUESTION:

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ALTERATION TO A PLATFORM FOR PURPOSES OF 

TRIGGERING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 37.42 REQUIREMENTS?

ANSWER:

• Section 37.3 defines an alteration as “a change to an existing facility including, but not 

limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction . . . changes or 

rearrangement in structural parts or elements . . . Normal maintenance . . . painting . . . or 

changes to mechanical or electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the 

usability of the building or facility.”

• In the context of a railroad station platform, maintenance and repair activities, such as 

painting or fixing cracks, would generally not constitute an alteration. Adding 

accessibility features that do not affect the basic configuration of or access to the platform 

(e.g., adding a detectable warning strip along a platform edge, installing a public address 

system or visual paging system) would also not constitute an alteration.

• Changes that do affect the basic configuration of a platform or the ability of people with 

disabilities to have access to the platform would constitute an alteration. 

• For example, if the platform height relative to the top of rail is raised, if the old surface is 

removed and/or a new surface put down, or if there is a reconstruction of or structural 

change to the platform that affects its usability (e.g., to remedy significant degrading of 

the facility), there would be an alteration.

The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document 

and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR Part 37.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 288 

Recognizing the life and accomplishments of Wellington Mara of New York. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2005 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the life and accomplishments of Wellington Mara 

of New York. 

Whereas Tim Wellington Mara was born on August 14, 1916 

in New York City; 

Whereas Wellington Mara became a ball boy for the New 

York Giants at the age of 9; 

Whereas Wellington Mara was made co-owner of the New 

York Giants in 1930 at the age of 14; 

Whereas Wellington Mara graduated from Loyola High 

School, a Jesuit institution in Manhattan, and then attended Fordham University; 

Whereas the only interruption in Wellington Mara’s 81 years 

with the New York Giants organization occurred during 

World War II, when he served with distinction for more 
2 

•SRES 288 ATS

than 3 years in the Navy, seeing action in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters aboard aircraft carriers; 

Whereas Wellington Mara was instrumental in crafting an 

agreement in which larger market teams shared television 

revenue with smaller market teams, thereby allowing 

football to thrive throughout the United States; 

Whereas under nearly 80 years of Wellington Mara’s leadership, the New York Giants made 26 postseason appearances, the second highest in league history, including 18 

National Football League Divisional championships, and 

6 National Football League championships; 

Whereas Wellington Mara displayed an unwavering commitment to his players and coaches by finding doctors for 

former players, paying for medical expenses, and arranging help for their families; 

Whereas Wellington Mara was an invaluable contributor to 

the National Football League as a member of many ownership committees and has been recognized for always 

putting the interests of the game ahead of what was best 

for the New York Giants; 

Whereas, in 1997, Wellington Mara was elected to the Professional Football Hall of Fame, joining his father, Tim 

Mara, who was a charter member of the Hall of Fame; 

and 

Whereas, at the end of a life dedicated to the great game of 

football, its fans, and players, Wellington Mara passed 

away on October 25, 2005, at the age of 89: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 
3 

•SRES 288 ATS

1 (1) expresses its most sincere condolences to 

2 the family of Wellington Mara, the former Ann 

3 Mumm, whom he married in 1954, their 11 children, 

4 and 40 grandchildren; and 

5 (2) recognizes the life and accomplishments of 

6 Wellington Mara, who, for more than 8 decades, 

7 dedicated his life to the New York Giants and their 

8 millions of fans and supporters. 

Æ
BEFORE THE

.f:.. ";:O_EJ'ARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D. C.

Motion of

AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.

for confidential treatment under Rule

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7)

DOT-OST-1995-569

MOTION OF AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

DANIEL P. GARTON

President

American Eagle Airlines, Inc.

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5494

DFW Airport, Texas 75261

KATHLEEN SOLED

Vice President & General Counsel

American Eagle Airlines, Inc.

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5494

DFW Airport, Texas 75261

(817) 967-1574

kate.soled@aa.com

November 12, 2013

FRANCIS C. HElL

Senior Attorney

American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 496-5642

francis.heil@aa.com
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSI?ORTATION

WASHINGTON, D. C.

Motion of

AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.

for confidential treatment under Rule

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7)

DOT-OST-1995-569

MOTION OF AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12

American Eagle Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12,

hereby moves that its Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 3Q2013 be

accorded confidential treatment and withheld from public

disclosure. The information for which confidential treatment is

requested pertains to American Eagle's airframes and aircraft

engine acquisitions and retirements.

In accordance with the Department'.s Final Rule on Submitting Airline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580,

41582, we are uploading our confidential report electronically

to the following website: http://esubmit.rita.dot.gov

On June 5, 1995, James W. Mitchell, Director, Office of

Airline Statistics, the Department granted confidential treat-

.

ment for a 10-year period to similar data filed by American

Airlines. For the reasons stated in Mr. Mitchell's letter, the

Department should grant the same relief here.
2 -

WHEREFORE, American Eagle moves that the schedule

referenced above be withheld from public disclosure under Rule

12 for a period of 10 years.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANCIS C. HElL

Senior Attorney

American Airlines, Inc.

On behalf of American Eagle

Airlines, Inc.

November 12, 2013
#### Eleanor Martin *versus*Robert Martin.

Courts of law recognize tlie territorial divisions of the State into counties and towns.

It is no ground for demurrer, that in .a writ of entry it is not alleged that the land demanded is *in the county*in which the action is brought; it is sufficient if it is described as being in a town which is within the county.

Exceptions from the ruling at *JSPisi Prius*of Goodenow, J.

*Record & Luce,*in support of the exceptions.

*Fessenden & Frye, contra.*

The opinion of- the Court was drawn up by

Appleton, C. J.

This is a writ of entry to which a special demurrer was filed. The land to recover which this action was brought is described in the declaration by metes and bounds, and as "situated in the town of Danville.” After the demurrer was filed, the demandant asked for leave to amend by inserting after the word "Danville,” the words "in the county of Androscoggin and State of Maine,” which amendment was allowed.

■ A real action will abate unless brought in the county where the land lies. "If brought in a Court in any other county, the writ would be abated; but in our practice there is no occasion for a plea to the jurisdiction in such a case. The count, which is always inserted in the writ, describes the land with as much precision and certainty *as would he required in a deed for the conveyance of the same land;*it must therefore always appear on inspection whether the action is brought in the proper Court, and.if not, the writ will be abated of course.” Jackson on Real Actions, 57.

Courts of law are bound to recognize the territorial divisions of the State into counties and towns. In criminal cases it is sufficient to state an offence to have been committed in the town of S, without adding the county in which *367the same is situate, to give the Court jurisdiction; the Courts take judicial cognizance of the towns created by law. *Vanderwerker*v. *The People,*5 Wend., 530; *Goodwin*v. *Appleton,*22 Maine, 453; *Ham*v. *Ham,*39 Maine, 263; *State*v. *Jackson,*39 Maine, 291.

The limits of Danville appear by its Act of incorporation. By the Act establishing the county of Androscoggin, Dan-ville is within its territorial limits. If the town is within the county, so are all the different portions of land of which it is composed. The demurrer admits the land in controversy to be "situated in the town of Danville.” Being in that town, it necessarily is within the county of Androscoggiii.

It follows that the amendment was unnecessary, the declaration sufficiently disclosing the locality of the demanded premises. The rights of either party cannot be affected by an immaterial amendment.

*Exceptions overruled.*

*Declaration adjudged good.*

Rice, Davis, Kent and Dickerson, JJ., concurred.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2006-25001 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2006-NM-079-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date